By Karen Sloan, From The National Law Journal

A former assistant director of financial aid at Arizona Summit Law School has sued the school, alleging it unlawfully fired her in 2013 after she refused to submit false state tax documents and complained of misleading information about student success.

Paula Lorona, who was also a part-time student at the Phoenix school and graduated in January, claimed that that Arizona Summit and the two other for-profit law schools owned by Infilaw Corp.—Florida Coastal School of Law and Charlotte School of Law—in May 2014 began paying poorly performing students $5,000 to delay taking the bar exam, to prop up declining bar-passage rates.

Lorona, representing herself, first sued Arizona Summit, Infilaw and various school administrators in Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court in March, but the case was removed to U.S. District Court for Arizona on May 28 at the defendants’ request.

“I needed to file this suit because I feel the school and Infilaw know they are taking advantage of students and potentially ruining students’ lives by saddling them with debt when they won’t be able to complete the program,” Lorona said in an interview Thursday. “Honestly, I think the concept of the Infilaw schools was well-intentioned initially, but at some point the dollar became the bottom line.”

Infilaw has spent the past 1 1/2 years attempting to acquire the Charleston School of Law over opposition from students, alumni and state regulators.

Nicole Stanton, an attorney at Quarles & Brady who represents the defendants, declined to discuss the details of the lawsuit. “The law school believes the claims are without merit,” Stanton said. “Like any lawsuit we believe is without merit, we plan to vigorously defend it.”

In an email, Arizona Summit dean Shirley Mays said the school’s tax filings are prepared with the assistance of an outside auditor, and that its job placement statistics are also audited by a third party. Mays said the school’s marketing materials reflect the same bar-pass information provided to the school by state bar examiners and required by the American Bar Association.

She did not address Lorona’s allegations that the school is paying students to delay sitting for the bar.

According to Lorona’s suit, Arizona Summit developed a “bar exam failure predictor formula” that takes into account students’ LSAT scores plus undergraduate and law school grade-point averages. It offers students deemed unlikely to pass money and other benefits to delay the exam pending additional test prep.

“The effect of Infilaw and [Arizona Summit’s] actions was to prevent students who [Arizona Summit] predicted would fail the bar exam from taking the bar exam and thereby gaming the bar test passage rates in order to retain accreditation and receive other benefits, such as retain Title IV eligibility from the Department of Education,” her complaint alleged.

The school informed Lorona on Feb. 11 that she was unlikely to pass the bar exam to be administered later that month, based on her lack of participation in the school-run bar-prep course, she alleged. She had opted to pay for BARBRI test prep instead of completing the school’s program. Arizona Summit offered her $5,000 to defer the exam—a deal the school claimed “many students have already taken advantage of.”

She declined the offer and, according to Arizona court documents, passed the bar exam.

Lorona’s problems at the law school began in 2012, according to her lawsuit. She was working as a student accounting manager when the former director of finance asked her to submit a sales tax form to the Arizona Department of Revenue that claimed that the school opened for business in 2008—three years later than the actual opening date. The school had failed to register and pay sales tax up to that point, Lorona’s suit claimed.

Lorona refused to submit the incorrect form and was “pressured and harassed daily” by the former finance director to submit the tax form, according to her suit.

Lorona complained to the director of human resources and the school president, Scott Thompson, but neither intervened, according to her complaint. She filed a whistleblower complaint with Infilaw, and shortly thereafter the financial director was fired. Lorona alleged that Arizona Summit administrators refused to consider her for a promotion into the position and continued to harass her and freeze her out of department meetings.

Starting in 2011, Lorena alleged, she began raising concerns to Mays about deceptive marketing to incoming students and investors about student success.

For example, she disputed Mays’ claims that students entering Arizona Summit through its Alternative Admissions Model Program for Legal Education (AAMPLE) were just as successful as students admitted through the traditional process.

AAMPLE, also used at Infilaw’s other schools, is a seven-week, $500 online law course. Applicants who pass are guaranteed admission into the school regardless of their LSAT scores or undergraduate grade-point averages.

Lorona alleged that she warned in meetings with Mays and other administrators that students admitted through AAMPLE were not as likely to graduate, pass the bar exam and find employment. Moreover, they only appeared successful because ever larger proportions of the class were coming through the program, and grades were distributed on a curve. Her suit claimed that 11 percent of AAMPLE student were admitted to the law school in 2005, but by 2011 that figure was 80 percent.

“They are pretty much admitting anyone who goes through AAMPLE,” Lorona said. “It went from being a second-chance program to basically letting just anyone in. You can see the different in the students.”

Moreover, the school advertised a bar-passage rate of 87 percent when the actual rate was closer to 47 percent, Lorona’s suit claimed.

Lorona was fired on April 13, 2013, with administrators saying they “felt she would be happier somewhere else,” according to the lawsuit.

She claims one count of retaliatory discharge, one count of violating the Higher Education Act’s program integrity regulations, and one count of consumer fraud. Lorona claims she would not have enrolled if not for the school’s deceptive marketing.

She seeks damages and attorney fees.

IMAGE: Credit: Hailshadow/iStockphoto.comgielski/iStockphoto.com

For more on this story go to: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202728422268/Lawsuit-Infilaw-Paying-Law-Grads-To-Put-Off-Bar-Exam#ixzz3cCePWJOo